Why I am against the tenure system in academia.

I am going out on a limb here as a tenured academic
and argue that “tenure” as we know it should be abolished. There is a
misperception that tenure means a job for life when in practical terms it
actually just means a post-probationary full time job in a very stable and
secure organization. Tenured faculty can still be fired for any number of
offenses from misconduct, bringing "disrepute" to the university (yes this is in my
contract), financial emergencies (frequently open to interpretation), and if
you actually read the contract, not doing the job. These are EXACTLY the same
reasons anyone outside the ivory towers in a permanent salaried job can be
fired. Most people do not consider that universities tend to be more stable
than private companies over the long run giving the false impression that it is
tenure and not the stability of the institution that results in job security. The
fact is that a full time banker, accountant or construction worker is effectively no less tenured than a university professor after they pass
probation.

One of the most significant differences between tenured academic positions and the
real world is the extended probationary period where young faculty are at the
mercy of tenured faculty. In how many other jobs does five to six year probation
end with a private vote of your full time colleagues on whether you stay or go?
A new hire lives with a sword over their head trying not to offend or in any
way cross the senior faculty who can fire them for effectively no real reason
at the end of the trial period. Junior faculty cannot say no to any favor asked
and must be constantly biting their tongues holding back from expressing
controversial positions in order to navigate the internal often factionalized
politics of the department. In many places, young faculty are expected to
publish, get grants, work much harder and be more productive than those with
tenure. Junior faculty depend upon a strong chair and hopefully a wise
department that will defend and not abuse them. This pre-tenure probationary
period is one the most stressful and uncertain times in any academics career,
and it usually lasts five to six years with an uncertain outcome at the end.

Any unfair protection from tenure comes from the good
ol’boy self-governing university system with senior tenured people colluding to back off to a more humane and reasonable
workload after earning tenure. Many back off too enthusiastically practically
stopping work thus hurting the university and undermining the original purpose
of tenure which was to protect academic freedom. This aptly named deadwood is a
drain on departments and is often cited as one of the strongest arguments
against tenure. In reality, it is a problem with complicit management that
lacks the will to go against tradition and enforce contractual obligations.
Before anyone says it’s the union’s fault, I will argue that any manager who
uses the union as an excuse is weak and lazy. No union contract ever requires
you keep on someone who is able and refuses to work. Competent managers will
document the offense and enforce the contract, not hide behind it.

We need to abolish traditional tenure by replacing it
with stronger rules protecting academic freedom at all levels. The free
expression and evaluation of ideas in academia sometimes requires the ability
to publicly both criticize and undermine our pay masters at the university and
at the state level. This often includes ideas that many members of the public
will find untenable from their moral and religious points of view. Hence, there
should be an explicit policy that faculty cannot be sanctioned or fired for
bringing political or media pressure on a university for any statements or
expression allowed under the 1st amendment. What I mean here is that
any expression not outlawed at the federal level is fair game. That represents
a huge expansion of free speech rights over what most people working in private
companies are allowed.

Faculty also must be protected from sanctions or
firing for any threatened or incomplete litigation from students. Only after a
court rules should any punitive action be allowed by the university. Policies
need to be in place ensuring that the university has the faculty’s backs. Some
might argue that this would limit a university’s ability to respond to
harassment, but these incidents should not be quietly covered up in the first
place.

I propose that we replace the current tenure track
with policy that all academics, from the day they are hired, be given safe
haven as described above for free-expression and academic freedom. This is effectively granting the protection of "tenure" to new hires as well. The probationary period needs
to have very clear written unambiguous objective
criteria of what must be done in that period (number of papers, grant amount, minimum teaching scores for example) to remove
subjective personal biases. Passing probation should be a simple, independently verifiable box
ticking exercise not up for a vote by department members but rather doable by someone outside the department. Only this way can a new hire freely contribute ideas
to the department and university. After
probation, we should be required to actually do the job we are paid to do
throughout our careers. Publicly presenting peer reviewed scholarly work of the specified kind at the specified rate, teaching the required hours, and midrange student feedback scores should be all
that is necessary and sufficient for continued employment. As in any other profession, not hitting these criteria should have paycheck ramifications with the possibility of termination in extreme cases. Finally,we really need to either start calling
every permanent job tenured or drop the word entirely given the negative
connotations it has acquired by its abuse in academia.